Is Atheism a closed minded standpoint ?

dd972

Agnostic in peace here.

I fully understand the basis for people's Atheism being the lack of verifiable evidence of God and having no truck with man made organised religion.

But, don't any of you (particularly militant atheists) feel that you've jumped the gun in deciding there's no god or prime mover? How do you KNOW ?, no one does, which is why I regard agnosticism as the more rational standpoint.

Sarky

Where's that nice wee chart that gets wheeled out for this question? I can't find the link. I blame the sherry.

King Mob

dd972 wrote: »

Agnostic in peace here.

I fully understand the basis for people's Atheism being the lack of verifiable evidence of God and having no truck with man made organised religion.

But, don't any of you (particularly militant atheists) feel that you've jumped the gun in deciding there's no god or prime mover? How do you KNOW ?, no one does, which is why I regard agnosticism as the more rational standpoint.

Most people here are agnostic atheists, just as you are.

Now to understand your misunderstanding answer this simple question: do you believe in fairies, yes or no?

Me Arse

Here we go again

dd972

I'm an Agnostic theist, what do the weak and strong on the chart intimate though?

mark renton

Me Arse wrote: »

Here we go again

On christmas day too - can we not have 24 hrs of peace and harmony in respect of baby jesus?

King Mob

dd972 wrote: »

I'm an Agnostic theist, what do the weak and strong on the chart intimate though?

Gnosticism and whether you have it or not.

So again, do you believe in fairies? And if not, why not?

MagicMarker

dd972 wrote: »

I'm an Agnostic theist, what do the weak and strong on the chart intimate though?

So what are your rational reasons for believing in a God?

dd972

Don't believe in fairies, but that's fairies

Don't know what happens at death or what was before the Big Bang which is the basis for my agnosticism.

Myrddin

Two 'believers' knocked at my front door this morning, at 11:45am. I opened the door, & seeing their campaign to 'save' me about to begin I stopped them short...I told them its Xmas morning & I've things to be doing so I won't waste their time.

I got the "So you've no faith in God" question thrown in my face. I'd call myself a non believer I guess, & personally I hate to insult anyone elses beliefs...but when they're asking for it I've no problem firing back my standard response. I threw the "Which God, because there's a lot of them?" line at them.

I then got the usual standard response thrown back at me, "the one true God..." the chap said. To which I retorted, "Well I guess that 'true' God is dependant on where in the world your born doesn't it?" The gentleman than began blundering on but again I stopped him short. I reminded him again its Xmas morning, I don't want to waste their time & I wished them well but there's no point trying to 'save' me & they left.

If your going to talk about closed mindedness, you can throw the faithful in there with atheists. This man was utterly convinced that his God, was the only real God. Every other member of every other religion, no matter how devout, was worshiping the wrong God according to this chap. Is that not the very definition of closed mindedness? I'm sure he'd call it faith, but I wouldn't.

Tbh, I don't even know what an agnostic is, I personally hate the tags society feels it has to put on people. I'm open to the idea of there being a creator, or multiple creators or whatever...science has some very interesting arguments, but there's so much we don't know...the big bang, consciousness, & all the other mysteries leave the door open for interesting debate. So whatever tag that fits me I suppose I'll have to take, but I don't believe any one religion has precedence over another, nor do I believe that every single person outside of Christianity is wasting their time with Allah, Buddha or any other current deity. To me, their all as valid as each other, Thor, Raa, God, Buddha etc etc.

I'd consider myself very open minded, but organised religion wouldn't be my gut instinct when it comes to quantifying how open minded I am. I'll end my ramblings with this: its probably not possible to be open minded when it comes to being faithful, not where religion is concerned. How can you have unbounded faith if your open to the idea that you could be wrong?

sink

dd972 wrote: »

Don't believe in fairies, but that's fairies

Don't know what happens at death or what was before the Big Bang which is the basis for my agnosticism.

Nobody does. What makes a deity crafted in the image of man any more likely than any other innumerous possibilities? I would say that gods with human attributes are very unlikely on the scale of things as it's precisely what an ignorant human would think up to fill the gaps in their knowledge.

King Mob

dd972 wrote: »

Don't believe in fairies, but that's fairies

Don't know what happens at death or what was before the Big Bang which is the basis for my agnosticism.

But why do you not believe in fairies? How can you be so certain about their non-existance? How do you know that fairies didn't cause the big bang or take care of your fairy essence after you die?

Chuck Stone

I have a soft spot for Banshees.

Sarky

They're ever so good at history :pac:

Improbable

dd972 wrote: »

Don't believe in fairies, but that's fairies

Don't know what happens at death or what was before the Big Bang which is the basis for my agnosticism.

Given the context of your posts, I'm going to assume you mean you don't know whether there is a god or not, you just believe there is one.

This is the problem.

A) Why don't you believe in fairies?

What happens after you die? The neurons in your brain that make you "you" decay and die. Your consciousness ceases to exist. Of course, you presumably meant to imply the existence of some sort of soul, another thing for which there is no evidence and therefore no reason to believe that it exists. There is no more sense to asking what happens to you when you die than there is to asking what were you before you were born. You're an ugly bag of mostly water. That's it.

C) A god of the gaps argument. You don't know what happened "before" the big bang which is a bit of a silly statement since there was no "before" the big bang. Time came into existence at the big bang. Putting that aside, just because you don't know X doesn't mean that you can fill that gap in your knowledge with god.

Myrddin

Improbable wrote: »

You don't know what happened "before" the big bang which is a bit of a silly statement since there was no "before" the big bang. Time came into existence at the big bang. Putting that aside, just because you don't know X doesn't mean that you can fill that gap in your knowledge with god.

How do you know there was no before the big bang, what if the theory of a multiverse is correct, & our universe is but one of many. Just becasue our universe didn't yet exist doesn't necessarily mean other don't/didn't.

I agree that ignorance shouldn't pave the way for the 'God' answer, but if the topic of this thread is open mindedness, surely just because you don't know what happened before the big bang doesn't mean you can attempt to explain it with 'there was no before it'?

dd972

What happens after you die? The neurons in your brain that make you "you" decay and die. Your consciousness ceases to exist. Of course, you presumably meant to imply the existence of some sort of soul, another thing for which there is no evidence and therefore no reason to believe that it exists. There is no more sense to asking what happens to you when you die than there is to asking what were you before you were born. You're an ugly bag of mostly water. That's it.


I assume then, you must be a ghost typing this as you already know what death is like

Zombrex

dd972 wrote: »

Agnostic in peace here.

I fully understand the basis for people's Atheism being the lack of verifiable evidence of God and having no truck with man made organised religion.

But, don't any of you (particularly militant atheists) feel that you've jumped the gun in deciding there's no god or prime mover? How do you KNOW ?, no one does, which is why I regard agnosticism as the more rational standpoint.

That (the high lighted bit) isn't what atheism is.

I've no idea if an intelligent being had a hand in creating the universe or not. What makes me an atheist is that someone else, another human, has decided that they do know an intelligent being had a hand in created the universe and I reject that they know this.

Atheism is a rejection of human claims that not only did such a being do something, but that this being proceeded to interact with humans, revealing things like moral codes to us.

It is a rejection of human claims, it says nothing about the world beyond humanity experience. If no one ever claimed gods existed I would never have to reject those claims, I wouldn't be making any statement about what I think about the existence of gods

A good analogy is this. I'm standing at a door with another man. Neither of us can see through the door. The man says "I believe there is a lion behind that door, I know this because he talks to me in my mind"

When I say "I don't believe you" I'm not making any claim about what is behind the door. I'm not even saying that I know there isn't a telepathic lion behind the door. I'm saying I reject the claim the man is making about communicating with this telepathic lion. That is not believable given the alternatives.

People make too much of a deal about atheists "know God doesn't exist". That misses the point. I don't know God doesn't exist. I know humans make up gods, are easily prone to imagining them, I know why they do this, and this you made that up or imagined it is a far more plausible and reasonable conclusion for why humans make these claims

At the end of the day that is all religion is, claims of humans. Rejecting the idea that a human knows something says nothing about the truth of the claim, nor does it have to. Again I have no idea what is behind the door, and I've no idea if it is or isn't a lion. I do know the man can't see behind the door either, and it is very unlikely he is communicating telepathically.

martingriff

Improbable wrote: »

Given the context of your posts, I'm going to assume you mean you don't know whether there is a god or not.

This is the problem.

A) Why don't you believe in fairies?

What happens after you die? The neurons in your brain that make you "you" decay and die. Your consciousness ceases to exist. Of course, you presumably meant to imply the existence of some sort of soul, another thing for which there is no evidence and therefore no reason to believe that it exists. There is no more sense to asking what happens to you when you die than there is to asking what were you before you were born. You're an ugly bag of mostly water. That's it.

C) A god of the gaps argument. You don't know what happened "before" the big bang which is a bit of a silly statement since there was no "before" the big bang. Time came into existence at the big bang. Putting that aside, just because you don't know X doesn't mean that you can fill that gap in your knowledge with god.

I am going to ask 2 questions

1. You say there s no evidence there s a soul and that is true but is there evidence there is absolutely no soul?

2. You say there was no before the big bang so what made the big bang? Some thing had to be there

The problem I have with some atheists not counting the militant one (as worse as the militant religious) is the argument there s no evidence of god (which again is true) but there is no evidence the god absolutely doesn't exist either.

Pardon any spelling mistakes it is Christmas and merriment has been had.

mewso

dd972 wrote: »

I'm an Agnostic theist, what do the weak and strong on the chart intimate though?

It refers to strength of belief. You are saying you can't be sure but you consider it more likely that there is a god than there isn't. I drifted towards agnosticism when I was younger thinking it was the more reasonable position to hold. Why be so arrogant to declare that there is no god but in my ignorance I was unaware that this is not how most atheists would consider themselves. Most of us are Agnostic Atheists i.e. I consider it highly unlikely there is a god but concede I can not be definitive on the matter. I think this is the fundamental misunderstanding people have when they consider Atheism.

This subject comes up time and time again and you have to understand that people on this forum are probably tired of explaining this over and over again. The lovely posters here can get very sarcy with people but I wanted to put it into context. I wouldn't be surprised if I had it all wrong myself To sum up most people don't know what agnosticism really means and most people are agnostic atheist when they say they are simply agnostic. Mainly because the Atheist part has negative connotations.

Happy [insertpreferredholidaynamehere] everyone.

MagicMarker

martingriff wrote: »

1. You say there s no evidence there s a soul and that is true but is there evidence there is absolutely no soul?

No, but there's no evidence proving that there isn't an invincible unicorn running up and down Dame St with the ghost of Abraham Lincoln on it's back either.

martingriff wrote: »

2. You say there was no before the big bang so what made the big bang? Some thing had to be there

Like God? If so, who created God? And if nothing created God, why do we need a creator for the Universe?

martingriff wrote: »

The problem I have with some atheists not counting the militant one (as worse as the militant religious) is the argument there s no evidence of god (which again is true) but there is no evidence the god absolutely doesn't exist either.

So does this mean you're open to the possibility of an invisible Abraham Lincoln riding a Unicorn up and down Dame St, as you can't prove he's not?

mewso

martingriff wrote: »

I am going to ask 2 questions

1. You say there s no evidence there s a soul and that is true but is there evidence there is absolutely no soul?

2. You say there was no before the big bang so what made the big bang? Some thing had to be there

The problem I have with some atheists not counting the militant one (as worse as the militant religious) is the argument there s no evidence of god (which again is true) but there is no evidence the god absolutely doesn't exist either.

Pardon any spelling mistakes it is Christmas and merriment has been had.

This is the same misunderstanding as usual if you don't mind me saying. Of course there is no evidence there is no soul, god and so on but why use these explanations. Why not just say "I don't know". By your argument anything I chose to explain these things is a valid as "there is a god" or "there is a soul". So lets have a free for all on what might explain these things.

King Mob

dd972 wrote: »

I assume then, you must be a ghost typing this as you already know what death is like

What makes you think that there would be something after death in the first place?

Zombrex

martingriff wrote: »

I am going to ask 2 questions

1. You say there s no evidence there s a soul and that is true but is there evidence there is absolutely no soul?

2. You say there was no before the big bang so what made the big bang? Some thing had to be there

The problem I have with some atheists not counting the militant one (as worse as the militant religious) is the argument there s no evidence of god (which again is true) but there is no evidence the god absolutely doesn't exist either.

Pardon any spelling mistakes it is Christmas and merriment has been had.

How is that a problem with atheists?

Would you say you have a problem with people who don't believe there is a Nazi command base on the moon because there is no evidence there absolutely isn't a Nazi command base on the moon?

Improbable

dd972 wrote: »

I assume then, you must be a ghost typing this as you already know what death is like

No, you see, you're the one making a positive claim in that you're saying "There is/might be an afterlife. The onus is on you to provide evidence for that. That principle applies to everything. If I were to claim I had a football sized diamond, I wouldn't expect anyone to accept that until I provided proof. I wouldn't say "Well you have to believe that I have it unless you can prove that I don't have it."

Improbable

martingriff wrote: »

I am going to ask 2 questions

1. You say there s no evidence there s a soul and that is true but is there evidence there is absolutely no soul?

2. You say there was no before the big bang so what made the big bang? Some thing had to be there

The problem I have with some atheists not counting the militant one (as worse as the militant religious) is the argument there s no evidence of god (which again is true) but there is no evidence the god absolutely doesn't exist either.

Pardon any spelling mistakes it is Christmas and merriment has been had.

1. You are the one making a positive claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence that it exists.

2. Nothing necessarily had to make the big bang. There are multiple theories out there as to how the universe could happen without there being some sort of a prime mover. For example, quantum fluctuations of a 0 energy state which resulted in the universe we know today and which still has a net 0 energy state, just in a different form.

Even if we had absolutely no idea about any of it, that is not evidence that a god exists. All you're saying is "we don't know how X works, therefore god must have done it.". It's a logical fallacy, a god of the gaps argument.

Once again, it is not our job to provide that there absolutely is no god. You are the one making a positive claim, it is your job to provide the evidence for what you're claiming.

martingriff

MagicMarker wrote: »

No, but there's no evidence proving that there isn't an invincible unicorn running up and down Dame St with the ghost of Abraham Lincoln on it's back either.



Like God? If so, who created God? And if nothing created God, why do we need a creator for the Universe?



So does this mean you're open to the possibility of an invisible Abraham Lincoln riding a Unicorn up and down Dame St, as you can't prove he's not?

I am open up to a lot of things. I have my beliefs now it may not be Abraham Lincoln riding a unicorn but I am open to have them challenged and proven wrong. I don't know if a "god" is involved with anything or not or if a heaven or afterlife exists but as I don't know one way or the other who am I to say anyone is wrong to believe n what they want to

martingriff

Improbable wrote: »

No, you see, you're the one making a positive claim in that you're saying "There is/might be an afterlife. The onus is on you to provide evidence for that. That principle applies to everything. If I were to claim I had a football sized diamond, I wouldn't expect anyone to accept that until I provided proof. I wouldn't say "Well you have to believe that I have it unless you can prove that I don't have it."

That great sound bite by atheists. Where is your onus to provide proof.

MagicMarker

martingriff wrote: »

I have my beliefs now it may not be Abraham Lincoln riding a unicorn but I am open to have them challenged and proven wrong.

Well considering you can't prove your beliefs are right, why should you expect anyone to prove them wrong?

bnt

martingriff wrote: »

That great sound bite by atheists. Where is your onus to provide proof.

Proof of what, exactly? By now we're all aware of the fallacy of "trying to prove a negative" (or should be), so we don't do that any more (if we ever did).

If you are accused of a crime, is the onus on you to prove your innocence directly? No, but you can show that it was practically impossible for you to have committed the crime by proving a positive claim. For example, if you have a solid alibi, that's considered good proof that you didn't physically commit the crime since magic and other woo-woo isn't considered legitimate under law.

Is that absolute proof that you didn't commit the crime? A thousand movie plots will tell you it's not - but the law has to work on positive claims backed by evidence, or else the concepts of guilt and innocence lose their meaning. Ever read about how they used to unmask witches in the Middle Ages? Hold them under water for a while, and if they didn't drown, they were witches, and were burned at the stake ...

Zombrex

martingriff wrote: »

I am open up to a lot of things. I have my beliefs now it may not be Abraham Lincoln riding a unicorn but I am open to have them challenged and proven wrong. I don't know if a "god" is involved with anything or not or if a heaven or afterlife exists but as I don't know one way or the other who am I to say anyone is wrong to believe n what they want to

That doesn't make sense, you clearly don't believe in every religion or supernatural claim, so you must believe some of them are wrong.

Nervous Wreck

martingriff wrote: »

That great sound bite by atheists. Where is your onus to provide proof.

Atheists don't make radical claims that gods exist. There's nothing for us to prove: the fact of there being no evidence at all for a god kind of just stands to our (lack of) claim.

Mark Hamill

EnterNow wrote: »

How do you know there was no before the big bang, what if the theory of a multiverse is correct, & our universe is but one of many. Just becasue our universe didn't yet exist doesn't necessarily mean other don't/didn't.

"Before" would still be the wrong phrase to use in that context, as time does not exist "inbetween" the existence of universes and may not exist in other universes "during" their expansion (at least in the same way as we perceive it). In terms of space/time in our universe, the best way to describe that might be to say that the mutiverse's universes exist "concurrently".

sephir0th

EnterNow wrote: »

How do you know there was no before the big bang, what if the theory of a multiverse is correct, & our universe is but one of many. Just becasue our universe didn't yet exist doesn't necessarily mean other don't/didn't.

I agree that ignorance shouldn't pave the way for the 'God' answer, but if the topic of this thread is open mindedness, surely just because you don't know what happened before the big bang doesn't mean you can attempt to explain it with 'there was no before it'?

The currently accepted viewpoint in theoretical physics is that there was no 'before'. The issue is that you are applying the everyday notion of cause & effect on a quantum event. If space-time itself began at the Big Bang, then the temporal word 'before' is rendered meaningless.

I don't think anybody is ruling out alternative theories, but 'God' does not count as a credible alternative - it is not a scientific theory - it is a product of our brain's evolved predisposition to the supernatural and hyperactive agency detection.

martingriff

bnt wrote: »

Proof of what, exactly? By now we're all aware of the fallacy of "trying to prove a negative" (or should be), so we don't do that any more (if we ever did).

If you are accused of a crime, is the onus on you to prove your innocence directly? No, but you can show that it was practically impossible for you to have committed the crime by proving a positive claim. For example, if you have a solid alibi, that's considered good proof that you didn't physically commit the crime since magic and other woo-woo isn't considered legitimate under law.

Is that absolute proof that you didn't commit the crime? A thousand movie plots will tell you it's not - but the law has to work on positive claims backed by evidence, or else the concepts of guilt and innocence lose their meaning. Ever read about how they used to unmask witches in the Middle Ages? Hold them under water for a while, and if they didn't drown, they were witches, and were burned at the stake ...

There is no god or afterlife. If i comit a crime as you say yes i have to try and prove my innocence however it is up to the other side also to prove that I did it. That is what they do in a courtroom. You know innocent until proven and all that.

Also why are you "proving a negative" where is your proof it is a negative.

martingriff

Zombrex wrote: »

That doesn't make sense, you clearly don't believe in every religion or supernatural claim, so you must believe some of them are wrong.

Yes that why I say I have my own beliefs did you not read my text.

martingriff

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Atheists don't make radical claims that gods exist. There's nothing for us to prove: the fact of there being no evidence at all for a god kind of just stands to our (lack of) claim.

You make a claim he does not. As you say there is no proof he exists but there is also no proof he does not exist and no just because there is no proof is not proof.

Sorry I should say absolute proof. Not saying you are wrong but how are you so sure.

Insect Overlord

martingriff wrote: »

You make a claim he does not. As you say there is no proof he exists but there is also no proof he does not exist and no just because there is no proof is not proof.

Sorry I should say absolute proof. Not saying you are wrong but how are you so sure.

martingriff

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Sorry it is a bit confusing let me put it this way I can't prove I was not somewhere does not prove I was there. You still have to prove i was there

Daftendirekt

martingriff wrote: »

You make a claim he does not. As you say there is no proof he exists but there is also no proof he does not exist and no just because there is no proof is not proof.

Sorry I should say absolute proof. Not saying you are wrong but how are you so sure.

Nobody is required to prove that something doesn't exist. There are an infinite number of things that that could possibly exist, it's not reasonable or practical to start from a position of belief and work from there. By default, we assume that a thing doesn't exist until evidence to the contrary is presented (if you're anything like the rest of the human race you do this as well for the multitude of other non-existent things, though many people unjustifiably make an exception for their preferred deity).

Also, "absolute proof" (or even just plain old "proof") doesn't exist outside of mathematics. You don't need to absolutely prove something to believe it, you just need some evidence that points toward its truth.

martingriff

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Nobody is required to prove that something doesn't exist. There are an infinite number of things that that could possibly exist, it's not reasonable or practical to start from a position of belief and work from there. By default, we assume that a thing doesn't exist until evidence to the contrary is presented (if you're anything like the rest of the human race you do this as well for the multitude of other non-existent things, though many people unjustifiably make an exception for their preferred deity).

Also, "absolute proof" (or even just plain old "proof") doesn't exist outside of mathematics. You don't need to absolutely prove something to believe it, you just need some evidence that points toward its truth.

Did not mean is like that the only reason I did is to get other reason other than well if you can't prove it there is my proof. People set out to do experiments and proofs all the time to prove that something exists or the way it is. Scientists do it all the time. They have a "belief" in something and they set out to prove it. They do not set out in the majority of case not to prove it . Also they do find proofs for stuff they may not be looking for

brandnewaward

haha, this is a class thread , can pick out who's reading dawkins (im halfway thru it) today. class book

zico10

martingriff wrote: »

Sorry it is a bit confusing let me put it this way I Atheits can't prove I God was/is not somewhere does not prove I God was/is there. You still have to prove i God was/is there

FYP

martingriff

zico10 wrote: »

FYP

Ya probably better maybe

Nervous Wreck

martingriff wrote: »

You make a claim he does not.

I don't make any claim. That's kinda the point.

martingriff wrote: »

As you say there is no proof he exists but there is also no proof he does not exist and no just because there is no proof is not proof.

Not to bring up what is now an old cliché but let's run with it. There is also no way to disprove that there is a flying monster made of spaghetti orbiting our galaxy and controlling it. But most people would agree there probably isn't. Again, the burden of proof is on people making radical claims that something that can not be seen, heard, felt*, smelled etc exists.

For example, if two people look into an empty box and one says "There is a cat in this box," the burden of proof lies with him.

martingriff wrote: »

Sorry I should say absolute proof. Not saying you are wrong but how are you so sure.

Because all we have are unsubstantiated claims.


*Emotionally 'feeling' something doesn't count.

King Mob

martingriff wrote: »

You make a claim he does not. As you say there is no proof he exists but there is also no proof he does not exist and no just because there is no proof is not proof.

Sorry I should say absolute proof. Not saying you are wrong but how are you so sure.

Martin, please suggest an entity you do not believe exists, such as fairies or dragons etc, then prove they do not exist.
Show us how we might be able to prove the non-existence of god.

Zombrex

martingriff wrote: »

Yes that why I say I have my own beliefs did you not read my text.

I did, I read the bit where you said you wouldn't say anyone is wrong. So what, every religion is true?

mark renton

You people have ruined Christmas

sephir0th

john47832 wrote: »

You people have ruined Christmas

martingriff

Zombrex wrote: »

I did, I read the bit where you said you wouldn't say anyone is wrong. So what, every religion is true?

No what I meant there is I would not go an tell the person there beliefs are wrong and crazy its there beliefs. I will think they are but i will not call them idiots.

martingriff

King Mob wrote: »

Martin, please suggest an entity you do not believe exists, such as fairies or dragons etc, then prove they do not exist.
Show us how we might be able to prove the non-existence of god.

Well I don't know how to prove it that fairies or dragon exists or don't. That is my point as I have no proof either way either could be true. Just because I can't prove there existence does not mean they do not or have never existed