Geebo

There is no proof of god. That's it.
You cant be 100% sure that anything that doesnt exist, wont exist sometime.
But for things so unlikely as god I assume for practical purposes 100% not.
But, I am still open for new things (and I think open mindedness is a characteristic of Atheists and most religions are closed to change)

What I do accept as 100% fact, are scientific facts about the world. My atheism is based on these positive facts, not on non belief.

southernhybrid

To put it simply, based on all the evidence there is in the world, I don't believe it is possible that there is a god or to make it even more simple: I am an atheist because I see no *reason* to believe there is a god. The burden of proof should be on the one making the claim that something exists in spite of the fact there is no empirical evidence that it exists. Just because I don't understand everything in my world does not lead me to believe that some magical super power must have created my world and he now rules our lives at his whim. It's just too childish, or primitive to come to such a conclusion as far as I am concerned. That's why I have no problem saying: "I am an atheist."

CX

It's quite simple really if we properly define the terms. Atheism entails only an absence of belief in deities in general. It neither entails nor precludes the positive belief that no god exists. So yes you are an atheist. Now you can also specifically avow that this or that actual god (i.e. JHVH, Allah, Siva) does not exist, but this again is not a necessary and sufficient condition of atheism.

Agnosticism is somewhat unrelated to atheism. Agnosticism means only that you hold that positive belief that the question of god's existence or nonexistence is insoluable. Thus one can be both agnostic and atheistic in one's view of god.

This is something I've thought about at length and I've given much the same reply many times on these or other forums.

All that being said let's address one more issue. Let's suppose there is some possible god which exists which is unlike any of the 30,000 or so gods mankind has conceived so far in our history. If we agree that this god is, though extant, not intervening in human affairs, not superceding natural laws and not in anyway interacting with the world as we know it, then said god is operationally no different than if there were no god at all. In that case it makes little difference whether one says, I do not believe in any god versus I disbelieve in all gods.

Furthermore, I suggest that any god so defined does not really warrant the term god as we commonly understand it. Nobel laureate Physicist Steven Weinberg has said that such a god's only purpose is so that one who does not, in point of, fact believe in god can nonetheless avoid being called godless. I wholeheartedly agree.

sighhswolf

I dont assign a label to myself, and will attempt to explain my views here. Hopefully I can verbalize correctly and get my thoughts across in an intelligent manner.

I like to leave open options for investigation, and in my own personal view a "label" implies
an adherence to a certain "Core belief".
Most religious types will say "Oh, you are an Atheist, you believe that god doesnt exist right?"
In my tiny little brain a little bulb is flashed
immediately, and my first thought is.... to exclaim that I am an atheist and that I do not believe god exists, gives them an opportunity
to stereotype me into an indefensible position.
And that being a "belief" that god doesnt exist.

I would rather deal in known entities, hard facts,
and verifiable premises.
"Belief" implies that you have intuitively come to a certain conclusion, not that you have examined the relevent facts and formulated a position, theory, conclusion based on those known and measurable factors.

I will say that I have read the material, studied the facts (or more precisely the Lack of them) and examined the issues and I have concluded there is no evidence, in my examinations, that could be used to verify the existence of a supernatural being.
I will further say that if such evidence is produced that will satisfy my standards of observation, documentation, verification by independent sources-- objectively, and these parameters are repeatedly examined enough to provide a basis for a theory and an eventual identification then I would reconsider my stance.
If that makes me an atheist in your mind, you are free to draw your own opinions.

In my own opinion, I think that agnosticism is irrational.
Either something exists and has measurable and concrete attributes or it does not and cannot be verified.
If you say that god exists, yet back track and then deem this entity as "unknowable" you have created a paradox that can never be resolved.
Nothing "exists" in our reality without attributes of some kind. To say that god exists
but has "unknowable" attributes is a contradiction in terms.
Christians want to believe in a god with unlimited attributes, who is by nature unknowable
by his followers, "man cannot nor will he ever understand the actions or motivations of god".
This is the most irrational thing I have ever heard.
But it clearly brings to the surface a very important fact, to assign attributes to any entity is to restrict that entity to a known set of parameters and capacities, and that is unthinkable to christians. From known scientific
operating parameters, to assign a "nature" to anything is to restrict that entity to that assigned "nature". Nothing exists that can operate against it's nature or outside of it's nature.
So now we have a theistic agnostic who refuses to assign any positive attributes, or a "nature" to their god for fear of "limiting" the capabilities of this supernatural being, which they have already pointed out is wrong-----------they want their god to be limitless in power and scope.
So, rather than risk assigning limitations, or defining the nature of the being, the agnostic simply prefers to believe in an "unknowable" god.
I have quoted Paul Tillich here before but he has said that christians wish to avoid the pitfall and irrationality of agnosticism.
They want a god who is supernatural, without
restrictions of any kind,with an infinite nature.
But, on the other hand they want a god who has attributes they can relate to, and characteristics that can be measured an easily related to.
The answer was to assign "unlimited Attributes".
Omnipotence, omniscience and other attributes that would define the characteristics of their god without restricting or limiting his nature.
This whole mess is nothing but an attempt to assign specific and determinate qualities to this divine supernatural being.
Nothing exists in nature that has determinate qualities without restrictions, it is not possible.
Feuerbach says, " The concept of god is permeated with ambiguities, contradictions, and just plain nonsense. Most of the flaws stem from the futile attempts of the christian to endow his god with unrestricted qualities.
The result ia an insoluble mixture of finite qualities and an infinite being, which transforms the christian god into a conceptual mess of unequaled dimensions.
When gods attributes are pushed to the limits of absurdity, the christian invariably falls back on mans inability to comprehend god.
If an atheist complains that omnipotence is impossible, or that a benevolent god cannot be reconciled with the existence of evil in our universe, the christian retreats into the "unknowable" god of agnosticism.
We are told that man just cannot understand the ways of god."

In my opinion if christians say that their god is unknowable, if we as humans cannot understand the ways of god, and then try to assign this being attributes that we CAN understand, they are no better than the agnostics they view with disdain.
George Smith says it as well as anyone could.
"The christian will be expressing the inexpressible, thinking the unthinkable, and presenting knowledge of the unknowable.
If this is the case we must ask the christian to "retreat into silence" or relinquish his belief."

Am I an atheist?
I leave the labels to you guys, and I will simply say the evidence that has been presented to me so far is not convincing in any way.
And no amount of circular thinking, semantics wars, and just plain irrational arguments will change that REALITY.
We live in a certain restricted "reality", if we were to define this christian god in terms of our perception of "reality", then he would cease to be supernatural and join the natural world and be bound by the same natural laws of the universe, that we are all restricted to.
Logically to define characteristics is to define existence, to establish existence is to restrict
that entity to the known natural laws of the universe that binds each and every one of us and destroys the unlimited attributes that christians assign this divine personage.
Remembering that in christian doctrine god created everything in the universe, so he must ,in fact be limited to his own creative abilities, or exist outside of the reality he created, and there is no evidence that there in fact is another reality other than the one we inhabit.

Oh well, just my little perspective on the issue
of assigning oneself a "label".
Could there be another reality that we have yet to discover? Well if we discovered it, it would not be another reality would it?
Wolf

David Gould

I am like you in that I am a weak atheist with regard to all God concepts - I do not have any belief in them (especially God concepts I have not heard of - how can you believe in a concept you do not know about, after all?).

However, I am an agnostic to them also - until I have examined them I cannot say for certain that they do not exist. Indeed, for some of them it may be impossible to arrive at such a conclusion -my example of the Deist God is one such.

Basically, I think we agree with each other - I am a naturalist also in my own way.

Theli

You don't need to be 100% certain in order to be counted as an Atheist. "Atheist" only means lack of god-belief. It doesn't mean 100% total denial of gods existance. Although some are more or less certain.
(Although, godbelief is NOT default. I mean... We were all born atheists.)

The same should go with Theists. They don't have to be 100% certain that god exists in order to be theists. I don't think anyone can be really 100% certain of gods existance/nonexistance without lying abit. As part of our lack of knowledge there is an underlying doubt on both accounts.
But is this doubt enough to make everyone (theists and atheists) agnostics? I would say NO.


And when it comes to being a weak or strong atheist, I would say I'm more of a strong atheist. I'm against religion on most parts. And I consider godbelief not to be default, so I would need ALOT of convincing before converting.



[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Technos

No, you misunderstand, I am not a weak atheist at all, not in regards to any deity. I believe that all gods are false, and I disbelieve in all gods equally, thus I am a positive Atheist or "strong" atheist all the way.

Autonemesis

Yes, I am. I try to avoid magical, mystical and wishful thinking wherever I can, and strive to recognize it wherever it lurks.

David Gould

Okay, I understand. I think I use a slightly different definition of strong atheist than you - mine is "100% certain that the God in question does not exist"

I think to be a strong atheist you need 100% certainty. But that is my opinion, of course.

Oolon Colluphid

My view may be rather unrefined, but it is simply that, in the total absence of any evidence, what’s the point? The reason I don’t venture in here often is that the whole question is an angels-on-pinheads one. There could be a teacup orbiting Pluto, but there is no reason to think there is, and many reasons to think there isn’t. On top of which, there are plausible reasons why belief in gods might be part of human makeup. IOW, (1) there’s no positive evidence, (2) there’s much refuting evidence, and (3) there’s reasons why people want to believe.

Under these circumstances, maintaining any such belief is irrational. Wanting something to be the case does not make it so, as my three-year-old is learning. If only adults learned it too.

That accounts for all the usually-promulgated versions of god(s); as for the deist version, it seems just as much a waste of time. All manner of things could be, but that alone is no reason to believe in any of them. What does allowing that they might exist achieve? In Carl Sagan’s (?) phrase, keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out. It’s all unverifiable ‘maybes, perhapses, maybe nots’. Sorry, but life’s too short to fart around like that. If there’s no way of telling, discussion is pointless. To all intents and purposes, such things do not exist, so why bother to even consider them?

TTFN, Oolon