Technos

Well, call me arrogant but I have no doubt that all gods are false.

Technos

I don't rightly like the word "lack."
I don't "lack" belief in gods but rather accept that gods are false, there's a difference. Of course it's just semantics (much like the point of the entire thread) so it doesn't matter much.

agapeo

I find myself somewhat confused by this whole discussion. It seems strange to me that there should be no clear-cut understanding of what it is to be an atheist. So many variants, but the sum appears to be one thing -- belief. The following is a perfect example of what I mean

[Well, call me arrogant but I have no DOUBT (emphasis mine) that all gods are false.
I don't rightly like the word "lack."
I don't "lack" belief in gods but rather accept that gods are false, there's a difference. Of course it's just semantics (much like the point of the entire thread) so it doesn't matter much.]

I would lean towards agreeing with this individual in that it really doesn't matter, except that obviously it does otherwise why discuss it. Out of curiosity, however, (and yes, I'm a stickler for semantics) what is the opposite of "doubting"? If it is what I think it is then what you have as an atheist is a belief. As such, it is subject to the same criteria that is placed upon the theist. Bottom line is the measure of proof, not evidence. No proof can be (as far as I know) can be given in either direction, thus it becomes a matter of what is more reasonable to "believe." This is a subjective perception. To each the other is unreasonable.

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: agapeo ]</p>

jj

Agapeo, I think you're not quite right.

Atheism is NOT about belief. One need not BELIEVE anything, one only needs NOT to believe.

Those are two very different things.

For instance, murdering and not murdering. Very different, yes?

tronvillain

I am a strong atheist, in that I believe that God does not exist (my estimate of the probability of God existing is extremely small). It is comparable to my disbelief in leprechauns - I am not [i]completelyi[/] sure that leprechauns do not exist, but the possibility is so insanely remote that it's not worth considering.

Saying that one has absolutely no doubt that all gods are false is saying that there is no evidence which would increase your estimate of the probability of a god existing. To me, this seems somewhat irrational.

Tomije

It is pretty simple--you can either believe in an All-Poweful God, or you can believe in an All-Loving God.

Believing in both is just stupid. There is so obviously no such thing as an all-powerful, all-loving God.

Find a 10 year span in history that proves me wrong, I'll mail you a dollar!

Dr. Retard

You should expect that a philosophical term admit of variations. People often use the same word in different ways. This is a fact of linguistic life.

In any case, belief is not a feature of every 'atheism'. "Weak" or "negative" atheism is merely the lack of a belief. For example, someone who lived his life completely unaware of the concept of a god would be an atheist by this definition, even though that person has no beliefs one way or the other about God's existence.

1. The question of the meaning of 'atheism' only matters inasmuch as it leads people into fruitless dispute, IMO.

2. I would say that the opposite of doubt is conviction. How this leads to the false conclusion that 'atheism' is invariably a belief is beyond me.

3. Why should we abandon evidential investigation of the God question? Why should we accept conclusive "proof-based" investigation instead? Isn't God's existence an empirical question, quite unlike the mathematical and logical questions susceptible to proof?

agapeo

[Atheism is NOT about belief. One need not BELIEVE anything, one only needs NOT to believe.
Those are two very different things.
For instance, murdering and not murdering. Very different, yes?]

I disagree, one believes the universe was created. The other believes it was not. These are opposing beliefs, true, but beliefs nonetheless if neither side can "prove" their position. Evidence in either direction is strong or weak according to your perception of the evidence. One looks at the evidence and sees "intelligent design" and the other sees "natural selection." So we debate over whose perception is more reasonable to believe.

Koyaanisqatsi

I'M SO F-ING TIRED OF THIS NONSENSE!

Some jackass thousands of years ago comes along and says, "Hey, did you know everything was created by U#:LKJE:LJSD?" And now we're all here trying to justify why we don't believe in U#:LKJE:LJSD, as if we have any obligation whatsoever to address such a stupid issue simply because some jackass thousands of years ago came along and said, "Hey, did you know everything was created by U#:LKJE:LJSD?"

U#:LKJE:LJSD does not and never has existed. This is not a question. This is an irrefutable fact. Because someone said U#:LKJE:LJSD exists means absolutely nothing.

Let's all repeat that. Because someone said U#:LKJE:LJSD exists means absolutely nothing.

No one--and I mean absolutely no living or dead human being to have ever existed--needs to say anything at all regarding U#:LKJE:LJSD's existence other than the jackass who first made such a fictional creature up.

Is that clear now? U#:LKJE:LJSD is made up; pretend; fictional; not-real; never-real; never-can-be-real.

So, either you believe U#:LKJE:LJSD
is real based on nothing but your own, personal wish-fulfillment fantasy or you don't.

If you don't, you are under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to explain why you don't believe a fictional (made up; pretend; not-real; never-real; never-can-be-real) character in a myth doesn't factually exist!

Fictional creatures don't exist. This isn't open to debate or conjecture or contemplation; it is an extant fact. Fictional creatures do not exist.

For anyone to come along and say, "U#:LKJE:LJSD exists," is to make a positive claim that requires some form of compelling evidence to prove.

If I say, "U#:LKJE:LJSD does not exist," no matter how you slice it, it is not a positive claim; indeed, it is the exact opposite. It is the observation of extant fact and requires nothing further. It is, at best, a tautology; at worst a redundancy, akin to saying, "That which does not exist, does not exist," or, "Fictional creatures don't exist."

It is the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc (literally, "after this, therefore because of this") and it is not valid.

Let's repeat that too. It is not valid.

So, does everyone get that now? Fictional creatures do not exist. To state, "I agree that fictional creatures do not exist" is to be what others here have termed a "strong" atheist, when in actuality, all they are are intelligent people needlessly affirming the extant facts of existence.

To state, "I disagree that fictional creatures do not exist," is to be what everyone calls a theist.

Up until this point, the theist and atheist are equals. It is only when the theist takes it one step over the ledge by then stating, "Further, I assert fictional creatures factually do exist and will punish you for not believing as I do," that the burden of proof is hoisted upon their shoulders by their own claim.

That's the way the burden of proof works. There is no burden of proof in stating what is extant! "I know that fictonal creatures don't factually exist."

Nothing about that statement requires anything further on my part to defend or support; there is no burden of proof inherent within that declaration of extant fact. NOTHING.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

PopeInTheWoods

Koy, why do you hate U#:LKJE:LJSD ?