I Am No Longer an Atheist (page 6)

cofty

Should I wade in or wait until the anaesthetic/morphine wears off?

As in so many things people feel the need to put themselves and others in a box with a label. I cant wath the video here but I started a thread once about "dictionary atheists". Saying you are an atheist tells us very little about your worldview. I know superstitious atheists.

Atheism has no burden of proof. I think people think you either have to PROVE there is no god or its only fair to think of it as 50:50 This is silly. Evidence for theism is absent. Evidence against theism is very compelling. Being rational means allowing your beliefs to be restrained by available evidence.

I agree with the OP. Very few people understand the issues well enough not to assume lots of misleading things about you when you describe yourself as an atheist. My thread in response to villagegirl is a typical example.

adamah

Atheism has no burden of proof.

Well, that's almost true.

If a atheist makes the (positive) claim, "God does NOT exist", then they bear the burden of proof to try and convince someone they said it to (just as a theist who says, "God exists" has to produce evidence to support that belief in an attempt to convince someone they should accept their claim).

The soft form of atheism says, "I don't believe in God, since the evidence produced by the theist hasn't convinced me". That's OK, as the default position should be NOT to believe in things unless there's evidence to support such a belief.

As long as the soft atheist doesn't utter the words, "God doesn't exist", he doesn't bear ANY burden of proof to support his claim. That would be the case of someone who hasn't decided on the existence of God, although 'soft' theists are quite prevalent, as well.

Adam

144001

Adam,

By "soft atheist," I think you're referring to an "agnostic," which would best characterize my own views on the subject.

tec

Then: "Yes."

Then what about Christ convinces you that God is 'bad'?

Peace,

tammy

cofty

I tend to disagree Adam.

Hard/soft atheist is a vague distinction.

Lets say I am 90% sure there is no god, do I have a burden of proof? I dont think so.How about 95% or 99% or 99.9% How many decimals before I have a burden?

I have no problem saying there is no god - I dont feel the need to add a pedantic disclaimer (but I am open to the vanishingly small possibility that there may be evidence to the contrary I am currently unaware of)

adamah

144,001 said-

By "soft atheist," I think you're referring to an "agnostic," which would best characterize my own views on the subject.

Yeah, that's correct.

The problem with the term 'agnostic' is that the term is derived from a old-fashioned and incorrect idea from theology, where different forms of 'knowledge' (gnosis) exist, and where somehow knowledge is above others, such as one's beliefs. It's so out of whack with our current theories based on the scientific evidence, that the term is useless, and hard to understand UNLESS you accept a belief in God first, which is begging the question.

Cofty said-

I tend to disagree Adam.

Hard/soft atheist is a vague distinction. Lets say I am 90% sure there is no god, do I have a burden of proof? I dont think so.How about 95% or 99% or 99.9% How many decimals before I have a burden?

The impossibility of quantifying beliefs into 'hard numbers' is why it's fruitless to even attempt to do so, eg people are 100% convinced the gun isn't loaded, and still manage to kill themselves when cleaning it. Delusions and dogmas also undermine the value of being able to quantify levels of certainty. You likely were a hard-core JW, and truly believed with every ounce of your being, but nevertheless, were wrong.

The best-case scenario is to go with the idea used in courts, where someone can be convicted of a crime based on some level of certainty, eg the preponderance of the evience, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc. Obviously something cannot be proved with 100% certainty, as the jails would be empty, since anyone could cast doubt that the DNA evidence had been tampered with, incriminating video footage had been staged, eyewitnesses all entered a conspiracy, etc.

Cofty said-

I have no problem saying there is no god - I dont feel the need to add a pedantic disclaimer

Yeah, it's not my idea (I learned of it years ago on an old Atheist Experience show) but many atheists see some apparent utility in the idea, as it makes alot of sense.

You however are free to do as you will do, since that's the nice thing about atheism; ideally it's based on adopting ideas based on logic and reason, after a cogent explanation is provided, and no dogma or sacred cows should be tolerated.

PS I'm feeling exceptionally 'pedantic' after your repeated insinuations of as much, so would it be overly-pedantic to suggest perhaps you use the term, 'adjective' instead of 'disclaimer', since the 'hard vs soft' designation serves no disclaiming functionality?

Adam

cofty

the disclaimer I referred to was the bit in parenthesis.

adamah

Ahhh, yes, I see that now... Thanks for the clarification.

BTW, to clarify on the term 'agnostic' (I was in a rush and FUBARed the explanation above):

Gnostics believed that some forms of knowledge was God-given, and therefore knowledge pertaining to spiritual matters were placed on a pedestal, even ABOVE other types of "Worldly" knowledge, and even above the non-believers beliefs. That's why in a theological discussion, you'll often hear a priest claim that "beliefs are a sub-set of knowledge", as if to suggest THEIR knowledge is somehow superior to even a non-believer's beliefs! Obviously flawed logic, and contrary to the findings from the world of science (i.e. psychology).

To a secularist, 'knowledge' is simply the data, the information about the World whether true or false, and 'beliefs' are those ideas which the person accepts as 'truths'. It doesn't MEAN they are true, but they are considered as true (which allows for the phenomenon of delusions, i.e. beliefs that are NOT true, but are accepted as true even despite evidence to the contrary).

So to a secularist, "beliefs are a sub-set of knowledge", which is EXACTLY the opposite of how a theologian views the situation (and also goes back to why the term 'agnostic' makes no sense, being based on a term from the World of theology).

Adam

Julia Orwell

Hey OTWO that is a really great op. A more defined description of how I've come to feel about the god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims. I sure hope he doesn't exist as he's a jerk.

zed is dead

I am an apatheist. Somewhere along the line, I lost my give a shit.

zed

I Am No Longer an Atheist

Share this