Atheists: Finding Comfort in Loss

Remove all ads!

Respectfully, anyone who makes an absolute statement about the existence of a god is a retard in some sense of the word.

I do not know if there is a god. *You* do not know if there is a god (your personal *knowledge* of god means nothing to anyone but you - absolutely no cruelty meant here. Anyone who makes an absolute statement either way has an ulterior motive or an utter lack of reasoning power.

**NO ONE KNOWS**.....you may find out for sure when you die - or 'find' utter oblivion. My guess is the latter...but what the **** do I know for sure?

 

nunsbane, the same could be said of an absolute statement about pink unicorns. Until we have explored every square inch of the world (and possibly the underworld -- prove to me such does not exist) and can ensure said pink unicorn cannot be avoiding detection through invisibility or teleportation (after all unicorns are believed to have magical powers), we cannot be absolutely positive the pink unicorn does not exist ... or for that matter pink elephants. And "anyone who makes an absolute statement about the existence of a [pink unicorn] is a retard in some sense of the word."

 

Sure, but pink unicorns are at least defined tightly enough to make the likelihood of all the conditions to be met lower than God. We can all agree that Pink Unicorns are really, really unlikely. God, on the other hand, is so loosely defined that just about anything will fit the bill, especially when one of the prevailing definitions of God in use today is that God is the universe. Using that definition, if God doesn't exist, neither do we.

That said, the pink unicorn argument is a great argument for why we shouldn't believe in God. It's not a terribly good argument, though, for why we should believe that no God exists. When an Atheist says that God is really, really unlikely, I agree with him. When he states that there is no God without some sort of qualifier, I don't. A subtle difference, to be sure, but an important one.

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here, but I'm sure we've all met that Atheist who so ably pokes Christianity full of holes that only the most devout fail to doubt the faith when he's through -- and then proceeds to argue that since Christianity has been debunked, there is no God. That guy is really annoying. He is in my opinion just as deluded as the guy who thinks God absolutely talks to him on a daily basis and even helps him with his curve ball.

 

Drew,
If an 'atheist' says that 'God is really really *unlikely*.'.....then he is a closet agnostic - and I would understand completely why you would agree with us agnostics.

Bruno,
Pink unicorns, Yetis, Space aliens, alternate dimension beings, ghosts, lizard people, the illuminati, U.S.O.s...etc. Come on, you did not miss my point - we are in complete agreement that the same statement could be made of such subjects. I do not know if any of these things do not exist, despite my doubt. You do not know if these things do or do not exist. I'm sure you have suspicions about pink unicorns and the like........but what do you really *know*?...you don't.

Anyone who would play at the idea of God loses the debate when he invokes 'pink unicorns', in my opinion.

I do not know if a god exists and neither do any of you.

Anyone who makes an absolute statement about any of these subjects is a retard/is limited in some fashion....chosen or congenitally imposed.

 

Technically, it depends on who's definition you're using. Richard Dawkins would categorize me somewhere between an agnostic (believing that God's existence and non-existence are equiprobable) and a weak atheist (someone who believes God's existence is not likely)*. He then adds strong Atheists (people who believe that the existence of God is highly unlikely) and absolute Atheists (people who believe there is absolutely no God) into the mix. Dawkins, himself, is a strong Atheist.

* While I don't believe that the existence and non-existence of God are equiprobable, I do believe that God is too vaguely defined to be quantified at all. Where the Judeo-Christian God, Vishnu, the Greek and Roman Pantheon, and other specific deities and belief systems are concerned, I am a strong Atheist. Where the vaguely defined "God" of unspecified nature, origin, or purpose is concerned, I am an Agnostic.

 

nunsbane, the "pink unicorn" was a metaphor brought up very early in one of these threads (they both are the same argument now and could probably be merged). I probably took the metaphor beyond the point any sane person would, but then the voices in my head have chosen to be silent on the matter and keep prodding me to maintain the argument.

It's ironic that a proof of nonexistence is required -- the complete lack of evidence is proof enough for me.

 

Come on Drew...you're killing me. Dawkins breaks down agnosticism into 3 categories ranging from true agnostic to strong atheism?....and then you want to further muddy my reality by saying that you would divide those categories with your own position on the 'agnosic spectrum'. What does Dawkins call those who are far too lazy to participate in his categorizations? You smart people and your *reading* irritate me.

Bruno,
Don't worry yourself about those pink unicorns...sanity is soooo overated.

Btw, the complete lack of evidence, most of the time, lets me know that I don't know for sure. I rarely completely discount anything....however unlikely I figure the circumstance to be.

 

You Wish. He actually breaks all belief into 7 categories! 1 is absolute belief in God, and 7 is absolute non-belief. Here are the categories if you care to look. I actually messed up my initial description, too. Dawkins categorizes himself as a 6 -- a De-Facto Atheist. For my part, I most assuredly do not consider God's existence and non-existence equi-probable, but merely incalculable. On religion, I would rate myself as a 6 (and for some religions, a 7). For God in general, I'll back-track a bit and say that I'm a firm #5.

1. Strong Theist: Does not question the existence of God, KNOWS God exists.
2. De-facto Theist: Strongly believes in God; lives life under the assumption that there is a God.
3. Weak Theist: Uncertain, but inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: Inclined to be skeptical about God.
6. De-Facto Atheist: God is very improbable; lives life under the assumption that God is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: 100% sure that there is no God.

 

Well, if you're going to make it easy for me by spelling out Dawkins' continuum then I will have to say that I fall somewhere between 5 and 6 on his scale. I am inclined to be skeptical of god *and* live my life under the assumption that god is non-existent.

#1 and #7 bother me. People who absolutely don't question are not worthy of a voice in the discussion....In fact, I question their existence. It is hard to imagine that any 1 or 7 never has a contemplative moment where doubt does not seep into a stream of thought.

Crap, what does Dawkins call those who don't believe in strong athiests or strong theists?

 

Good point, Nunsbane, but I'm pretty sure that 99.9% would still technically count as a 1 or a 7, and I have a hard time imagining that people who believe that God actually talks to them ever really do have a contemplative moment along those lines. Put another way, anyone who honestly believes he has witnessed or partaken in a Christian miracle, heard the voice of God or, say, spoken in tongues is highly unlikely to ever doubt God's existence. For such a person, the proof is concrete.

That said, yeah, I imagine 7's are somewhat less common than 1's.

 

Hey what do you know, I'm not on Dawkins' scale.

 

Altough I think a lot of people are 6.999999999999999s so to speak. I am not 100% sure about *anything* but there are a few things I am as sure of as it is possible to be, the non-existance of god is one of them.

 

Dawkins admits that there are way more 1s in the world than 7s. Since there will never be any proof of God's non-existence, it is very difficult for anyone to say he is sure that God does not exist. Most people who call themselves atheists are typically a 6 on his scale - that they view the existence of God as so remote that they live their lives with the assumption that he does not exist.

On the other hand, there are many 1s. Some of the people on this board are 1s. NOG says that he has seen miracles, and that God actively gives him direction in his life, so for NOG, God's existence is absolute. He sees concrete proof, and so there is no reason for him not be 100% sure in his belief. I cannot deny his personal experience (although I am skeptical of his interpretation of his experiences), but it does not change the fact that there are many more people like NOG who are absolutely sure that God exists than people who are absolutely sure God does not exist.

 

Cool 7 categories. If there were two more, we could give them alignments.

Just to nitpick; if someone is 100% sure there is no god, he's not approaching it right. He's viewing atheism as an ideology instead of a way of thinking. Taking a leap of faith in science, that's not what the scientific method is about.

Sure, if people don't have the time or inclination to nuance their ideas, then 'faith in science' is a viable surrogate. But 'true 7s' should not participate in discussions of faith vs. science.

 

Personally, I think science is overrated. But that's just my opinion.

 

You're saying science is overrated? Using a computer to post this on an internet message board where people all over the planet can read it seconds after you've written it? You've chosen an odd medium to make such a statement

 

That's the beauty of religion. There's an explanation for any state:

If yes: Then it was God's will that we have internet fora.
If no: It was not His will that we have it.
If not yet/maybe: God decided that it's not the right time to have internet fora. Perhaps if we wait, we will get it delivered.

Most of the time, the rationalizations are ironclad. Untouchable.

Evolution vs. divine plan is a tricky one. Here the bible contradicts nature too many times to go unnoticed. The entire principle of religion revolves around an all-powerful creator, with an intelligent plan. But evidence isn't enough to get staunch believers to abandon their cause. Science is overrated

 

I'm not sure what you guys are ranting about, but I'm sure God had nothing to do with the creation of the foolishess that is the internet. How many links would you like me to paste that demonstrate the utter uselessness of the WWW?

I'm sure at one point, some people viewed the invention of the radio or TV as something worthwhile as well. But it's mostly crap. Can any of this junk compare to the invention of the movable type printing press?

 

I can think of a few things...

 

Drew - IMO, the two greatest inventions are the wheel and the MTPP. Everthing else is secondary, except maybe the invention of the drum. Look here, Drew - Drummers have all the fun, even old dudes:



So who needs science and the internet?

What's more foolish and a bigger waste of time than the internet?