Freethought & Rationalism Archive

djf · 01-10-2002, 07:18 PM

This post is attended to raise the question of where most atheists draw the line when it comes to determining the existance of god. What I mean by this is where they believe the concept of god becomes so vague that they must switch over to an agnostic position. For example, does one believe that a god that is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent to be quite impossible while a god that is only omnipotent to be possible but without proof (agnostic position). Also if they take an agnostic position for a god that is only omnipotent do they also take an agnostic position concerning that the universe was scientifically created (in over words there is no god)? If not what logic is there for such reductionism? I'd like to hear people's input, atheists and agnostics alike.

David Gould · 01-10-2002, 07:38 PM

I do not bother defining myself in terms of all God concepts.

I am an atheist (in other words, I have no belief in them)to all of them because there is no evidence for any of them.

I am a strong atheist with regard to the Christian God concept - I believe that such a being is logically impossible and therefore cannot exist.

With regard to how the universe came into being, I am agnostic in that I do not know. I am an atheist in regard to the deistic God (no evidence therefore no belief).

As there is no evidence for any type of God, that only leaves some form of scientific explanation (until such time as evidence for a God emerges, of course). Whether this can be determined by humans is at this stage unknown.

"I do not know" is a scientific answer, by the way. Wihtout such an answer, science would not have even got started.

David

djf · 01-10-2002, 07:53 PM

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: djf ]

djf · 01-10-2002, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Gould:
I do not bother defining myself in terms of all God concepts.

I am an atheist (in other words, I have no belief in them)to all of them because there is no evidence for any of them.

David

You say that you have no belief in them but what is the difference between having no belief and believing they don't exist? Can't an agnostic say that he has no belief in god and that he has no belief that god doesn't exist? Is your saying that you have no belief in god a way of saying that you see no evidence to establish a belief that it doesn't exist? If thats the case what's the difference betwen your position and that of the agnostic? If the difference is that you believe that since there is no evidence, that you can establish a claim that you don't believe in god; do you then disagree with the statement "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"? Wouldn't you then be establishing a belief based on no evidence?

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: djf ]

David Gould · 01-10-2002, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by djf:


You say that you have no belief in them but what is the difference between having no belief and believing they don't exist?



I thought I explained that - I am a strong atheist with regard to the Christian God; in other words, I think it cannot possibly exist and therefore am not holding my breath for evidence for it.

I am an atheist with regard other gods - I have no belief in them while accepting they might exist.

[/QB]


Can't an agnostic say that he has no belief in god and that he has no belief that god doesn't exist?


An agnostic can say whatever they want, I guess. I do not think that agnostic and atheist are opposite positions. Neither is agnostic and theist.

In a way, my atheism with regard to the deistic God could be described as agnsoticism - 'I do not know.' However, I think that the word 'atheist' describes my position more accurately than the word 'agnostic' in that while I am not 100 per cent certain the deistic God does not exist, no evidence for it exists and so I will not have a belief in it until such evidence is provided/discovered.



Is your saying that you have no belief in god a way of saying that you see no evidence to establish a belief that it doesn't exist?

If thats the case what's the difference betwen your position and that of the agnostic?



I believe I have covered this in that I think it is perfectly possibly to be an agnostic atheist. I think atheist describes my position better because of what I above.



If the difference is that you believe that since there is no evidence, that you can establish a claim that you don't believe in god; do you then disagree with the statement "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"?



I will try to paraphrase your question to make sure I understand it:

'Do i believe that no evidence justifies having no belief?'

My answer to this is yes.

The second part of the question, I would answer that I do agree with that statement, which is why I am not a strong atheist to things that are not logically impossible.



Wouldn't you then be establishing a belief based on no evidence?

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: djf ]

As I have answered that I do agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, then your last question is moot.

David

ecco · 01-11-2002, 05:52 AM

Is there or is there not a GOD? The concept of a Christian god is as nonsensical as the concepts of Thor, Venus, Atlas, et al. Is there a GOD who created the universe? To believe this I would have to believe that a super-being miraculously popped into existence from nothing or that this super-being somehow always existed. These two alternatives are as equally nonsensical as the concept of Thor, Venus, etc.

I fully agree with David when he said: �I do not know is a scientific answer�.

Demiurge · 01-11-2002, 06:09 AM

I am agnostic about most pantheistic philosophies, as well as Taoism and Buddhism. When God is ambiguously defined as a non-personal force, or the ground of being, or merely as a unversal set of physics (wasn't that Spinoza's view?), then I am more open to the possibility of such a god. The idea that god not only created everything but is everything makes a certain kind of sense to me. I'm not saying I believe it, but it sort of "feels right" to me. I'm more open to that than I am to the idea of a god who is separate from his creation, the god who is the father/lawgiver/architect/king. I think the latter just seems like us projecting our archetypes onto the unknown.

DarkBronzePlant · 01-11-2002, 09:00 AM

djf,

your question is a bit misleading, in that it presumes that one should believe in god until enough evidence abounds that god is an impossibility.

For many of us here, belief in god is formed or not formed in the same manner as any other belief. There needs to be evidence to believe something to be true before we can believe it to be true. The only evidence for the existence of god is that the bible says it is so. That on its own, to me, is insufficient evidence to believe in something like god. The fact that the bible is so riddled with inaccuracies and downright untruths makes even that little bit of evidence irrelevant. Thus, there is no reason to believe in god whatsoever. Thus, I am an atheist.

djf · 01-11-2002, 12:14 PM

I think everybody has missed my point except David Gould. My question was trying get at if whether or not having no evidence to prove god is a valid reason to believe it doesn't exist. Not that its a valid reason to have no belief that it exists. Keep in mind I am making a clear distinction between believing god doesn't exist and "having no belief god exists" as Gould put it. I suppose my question would be clearer if I asked; would it be logical to believe something doesn't exist(just like how fundies believe god exists) if you couldn't support this with evidence? Personally I believe it would not be a logical thing to do.

Don't get me wrong, I consider myself an athiest. However lately I have been thinking about the definition atheists have been making for themselves(the one that states that its an absence of belief in god) and have grown to see it as being no different than the agnostics. Instead the weak atheist definition should be that one who believes god doesn't exist. Personally I believe god doesn't exist because I see evidence that supports me. However, to not go with the agnostic position only because you haven't yet been shown evidence is silly to me.

Another question I have for the atheists if whether they believe that the statement "absence of belief is belief of absence" to be true. If thats the case, and you believe its true, I suppose the argument I made above would be hard to understand.

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: djf ]

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: djf ]

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: djf ]

Dianna · 01-11-2002, 12:51 PM

I'm with you, djf. I don't see much difference in the atheist and agnostic positions beyond my experience that agnostics choose the label because they don't like the label "atheist."

An agnostic, in my opinion, is a weak atheist. An agnostic, to be sure, IS an atheist because he has no belief in deity. Leastwise, I've yet to meet an agnostic believer.

But, for some reason, atheists and agnostics argue about what their labels mean.

I don't like to "believe" anything. If there's enough evidence to support something, you needn't "believe in" it. So, I don't "believe no deity exists." I don't have to. It's pretty obvious. I also don't "believe in" any deities, naturally, since there aren't any around. But then, if there were any around...I wouldn't have to "believe in" them.

I just confused myself. Thanks.
Dianna.

01-10-2002, 07:18 PM	#1
djf Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 38	Where line is drawn This post is attended to raise the question of where most atheists draw the line when it comes to determining the existance of god. What I mean by this is where they believe the concept of god becomes so vague that they must switch over to an agnostic position. For example, does one believe that a god that is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent to be quite impossible while a god that is only omnipotent to be possible but without proof (agnostic position). Also if they take an agnostic position for a god that is only omnipotent do they also take an agnostic position concerning that the universe was scientifically created (in over words there is no god)? If not what logic is there for such reductionism? I'd like to hear people's input, atheists and agnostics alike.

01-10-2002, 07:53 PM	#3
djf Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 38	[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: djf ]</p>

01-11-2002, 12:14 PM	#9
djf Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 38	I think everybody has missed my point except David Gould. My question was trying get at if whether or not having no evidence to prove god is a valid reason to believe it doesn't exist. Not that its a valid reason to have no belief that it exists. Keep in mind I am making a clear distinction between believing god doesn't exist and "having no belief god exists" as Gould put it. I suppose my question would be clearer if I asked; would it be logical to believe something doesn't exist(just like how fundies believe god exists) if you couldn't support this with evidence? Personally I believe it would not be a logical thing to do. Don't get me wrong, I consider myself an athiest. However lately I have been thinking about the definition atheists have been making for themselves(the one that states that its an absence of belief in god) and have grown to see it as being no different than the agnostics. Instead the weak atheist definition should be that one who believes god doesn't exist. Personally I believe god doesn't exist because I see evidence that supports me. However, to not go with the agnostic position only because you haven't yet been shown evidence is silly to me. Another question I have for the atheists if whether they believe that the statement "absence of belief is belief of absence" to be true. If thats the case, and you believe its true, I suppose the argument I made above would be hard to understand. [ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: djf ] [ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: djf ] [ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: djf ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-10-2002, 07:38 PM	#2
David Gould Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 759	I do not bother defining myself in terms of all God concepts. I am an atheist (in other words, I have no belief in them)to all of them because there is no evidence for any of them. I am a strong atheist with regard to the Christian God concept - I believe that such a being is logically impossible and therefore cannot exist. With regard to how the universe came into being, I am agnostic in that I do not know. I am an atheist in regard to the deistic God (no evidence therefore no belief). As there is no evidence for any type of God, that only leaves some form of scientific explanation (until such time as evidence for a God emerges, of course). Whether this can be determined by humans is at this stage unknown. "I do not know" is a scientific answer, by the way. Wihtout such an answer, science would not have even got started. David

01-11-2002, 05:52 AM	#6
ecco Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: SE Posts: 4,845	Is there or is there not a GOD? The concept of a Christian god is as nonsensical as the concepts of Thor, Venus, Atlas, et al. Is there a GOD who created the universe? To believe this I would have to believe that a super-being miraculously popped into existence from nothing or that this super-being somehow always existed. These two alternatives are as equally nonsensical as the concept of Thor, Venus, etc. I fully agree with David when he said: �I do not know is a scientific answer�.

01-11-2002, 06:09 AM	#7
Demiurge Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Butler Posts: 67	I am agnostic about most pantheistic philosophies, as well as Taoism and Buddhism. When God is ambiguously defined as a non-personal force, or the ground of being, or merely as a unversal set of physics (wasn't that Spinoza's view?), then I am more open to the possibility of such a god. The idea that god not only created everything but is everything makes a certain kind of sense to me. I'm not saying I believe it, but it sort of "feels right" to me. I'm more open to that than I am to the idea of a god who is separate from his creation, the god who is the father/lawgiver/architect/king. I think the latter just seems like us projecting our archetypes onto the unknown.

01-11-2002, 09:00 AM	#8
DarkBronzePlant Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: San Francisco, CA USA Posts: 3,568	djf, your question is a bit misleading, in that it presumes that one should believe in god until enough evidence abounds that god is an impossibility. For many of us here, belief in god is formed or not formed in the same manner as any other belief. There needs to be evidence to believe something to be true before we can believe it to be true. The only evidence for the existence of god is that the bible says it is so. That on its own, to me, is insufficient evidence to believe in something like god. The fact that the bible is so riddled with inaccuracies and downright untruths makes even that little bit of evidence irrelevant. Thus, there is no reason to believe in god whatsoever. Thus, I am an atheist.

01-11-2002, 12:51 PM	#10
Dianna Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Central Florida Posts: 86	I'm with you, djf. I don't see much difference in the atheist and agnostic positions beyond my experience that agnostics choose the label because they don't like the label "atheist." An agnostic, in my opinion, is a weak atheist. An agnostic, to be sure, IS an atheist because he has no belief in deity. Leastwise, I've yet to meet an agnostic believer. But, for some reason, atheists and agnostics argue about what their labels mean. I don't like to "believe" anything. If there's enough evidence to support something, you needn't "believe in" it. So, I don't "believe no deity exists." I don't have to. It's pretty obvious. I also don't "believe in" any deities, naturally, since there aren't any around. But then, if there were any around...I wouldn't have to "believe in" them. I just confused myself. Thanks. Dianna.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.